The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-09-15

you favored the bill in that shape. Now,
did you favor or oppose the above
amendment? 1t is also we'll known fact
that some of the largest cattlemen in the
state lowered about the legislature like
vultures about dead carcass while this
bill was under consideration, vigorously
lobbying for its passage, and they OPP
posed my amendment. You now take
shelter behind the above feature of. the
law, for which 1 should properly have
credit, as justification for our acts in
leasing lands in demand for settlement,
and arraign me for "laboring so persist.
emily to mar, mutilate and defeat the law
while it was being framed"
I note your apology that you "did not
make the law" and that it is simply your
painful duty to execute it," 1t is true
that you did not make the law, but you
will doubtless admit that you exerted
your influence to secure its passage, and
every one who knows anything about the
workings of a Texas legislature knows
how hard it is to defeat the commissioner
when he sets to work to secure the passage
or defeat of land bill.
1, in common with an interested
public, am glad to learn that you
are doing all you can to secure speedy
and correct classification and valuation
of these lands. Your recent visit to the
Panhandle is hailed by our people as the
dawn of a brighter day for them, and it is
believed that you have seen and learned
enough to induce you to clasp hands with
us in trying to secure an early settlement
| Of fhic IN, TO
out to few capitalists for perpetual
stock ranch.
You mistake the meaning of my letter
when you say that you "must decline to
give me the assurance demanded, that
| actual settlers be allowed to purchase
their lands at the minimum price fixed by
the law" 1 made no such demand. /
only suggested that Hundreds of good
citizens have settled upon school land in
the Panhandle and other portions of this
representative district, expecting to be
permitted to purchase the same from the
state at the minimum prices fixed by the
law" and that "they have bona fide settled
| upon the land, and ought to be allowed to
purchase it at the minimum price,"
My reasons for making this suggestion
are based upon the following facts and
circumstance: A great many of these
settlers went upon their land two, three
and four years ago-some as long as five
and six years ago. At that time lands
were nothing like as valuable as at present.
Scores of these people have made
application to buy, and rendered the
money, but the lands being watered, the
land board refused to accept their
al, H,,l
an owner of unimproved land in this
country holding it at more
than the minimum prices fixed
by the law for land of the same quality.
Admitting, for the sake of argument, that
values have increased beyond the state'S
minimum prices because of the rapid set
Element of the country are these settlers,
the vanguard of civilization, who have
stood the brunt of frontier life, to be
charged up with this difference in values,
which is due to their efforts? This same
law which you are executing makes this
generous proviso for the cattleman: "That
any person or persons who have hereto
fore leased lands from this state at prices
fixed by the land board, and whose leases
are not yet expired, shall have their rental
for the remainder of their unex pired term,
reduced to the prices charged under this
bill for the lease of similar lands" be-
lieve you favored the passage of this law.
Why was there not reduction made also
for the man with the hoe? 1 submit to
your generosity to say whether or not my
suggestion is unreasonable, and if a de-
mand, would it be unreasonable? l shall
not request or demand you to do any act
not permitted by the law. I have simply
appealed to the executive to investigate
the case and enforce the law as it is writ
ten, and not according to discretion"
For 1 am persuaded, from observation,
that the state has been "discretioned" out
of millions of dollars in the last decade,
besides, thousands of good citizens, in the
management of these lands.
You boast of the saving clause you put
in each lease, by which yon claim that the
rights of settlers who were on the land on
the 4th of July, are fully protected, and
that the lease is further made
subject to future classification, and that
the agricultural lands will be subject to
sale under it, You need not have done so,
because the law already provides for that
emergency through my amendment, which
ayers of the bill. And with this flourish
you triumphantly ask me if l believe that
leases made in this manner will keep out
single settler. l answer you that do
so believe; and it seems from the language
of the law that the legislature concurred
with me in my opinion. (See sections Is
and % of the land law My belief, how
ever, does not cut figure in this matter.
Let us again refer to the law: l fully
agree with you that "this law is the will of
the people, and the commissioner is their
servant" And "the law is wonderfully
full and explicit, and you have but to read
it carefully" to know what to do. Section
Is requires that when application to lease
is made, the commissioner, IF satisfied
that the lands applied for are not in i'm
mediate demand for purposes of actual
settlement. and that such lands can be
leased without detrimo ont to the public in
terest, shall notify the applicant in writing
that his proposition to lease is accepted"
How is the commissioner satisfied before
accepting the proposition to lease? Does
he require the applicant to furnish evil
dence to satisfy him that the lands ap-
piled for "are not in immediate demand
for purposes of actual settlement" or
does the commissioner waive the proof
and assume that it is not wanted for set
Element. and if you do so assume, by what
course of reasoning do you agive at
such conclusion! l called upon